[D-G] What is the difference between a schizo and a bad poet?

Lucy LeGentilSinge lucy100millionyearsold at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Feb 17 12:14:46 PST 2005

> Why not respond in your new way of thinking? Why
> collapse back into the old, conservative way that I
> give you?

This is to presuppose that I have to be aesthetized by
myself, (that I need to limit my freedom and restrain
my answers , or stop answering when you tell me
something, and restrain my human liberty, which is
contradicoty to our thesis, and that I need to be a
bad poet and a poseur, which is what you're blaming
for, isn't it? trying to create a poseur is your act
of philosophical (conservative) wisdom?

> We have understood Deleuze poorly (and Bergson) if
> we lose the sense of taste. Without it we are left
> following everything and always fail to find the
> new.


 --- sid littlefield <falsedeity at lycos.com> wrote: 
> What is served by these posts. 

Knowledge, Humanism.

Are we to believe
> that there is not theory of taste in Deleuze? 

By whom are we led to beleive in a theory of taste if
not by ourselves as agonist and philosophers of taste?

in all
> great philosophies? So we can recognize the new
> thought, can we recognize what it will not be? Are
> your non-sensical posts about "labs" and "monkeys"
> what we have to look forward to? This is new? 

I am wondering how much your forcing of the
aesthetisation of our Science by Becomings
and your affirmation of a theory of "taste" in Deleuze
have collided in a moment of inspiration / anger and
produced your agonic e-mail. What kind on a deeper
level can this discussion that we have together can
point out on the becomings implicated in the notion of
"theory" that your taste is developping. Have you
thought that it was not "new" that Nietzsche already
said that the philosopher is like an animal. Is this
not all ressentment I mean, and blinding any opening
of your "captors"? What is the problem???
> So give me no pity. This was I thought the best part
> of your post. Finally something fun.

It was ajoke indeed, and it was also a serious joke.
As I learned by popular meaning , as the saying goes
as we say: in every little joke there is some part of
a serious game. But this brings us back to game in
Ethology. We are just leaving out the blanks because
we beleive more at the present stage, in
experimentation by observing random facts, MORE than
experimentation by  inter-agonic theories between
scholars and "tasters" and "aesthesising forces" of
conservative reseachers. Read Philosophers of Science
like our estimed Philosopher and Politologus Isabelle
Stengers to get a bad consciousness draught about what
we did by insulting each other undirectdly and lacking


Lucy -
> There is a sense of gravity even in those words that
> we think are clever.
> sid
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow
> Pages
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Admin interface:

ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list